Attention!!! Pro Sports Daily will be down on Wednesday morning from 5:00am - 7:00am eastern time for database maintenance. All Sports Direct Inc. properties will be down during this scheduled outage.
Sorry for any inconvenience that this outage may cause.

If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

I believe guns should be banned entirely. The exception being that you can rent guns for hunting as long as you have gone through significant screening. The constitution needs to be looked at in terms of its context. It was written well over two hundred years ago back when muskets were the main source of weaponry. Muskets are not nearly as powerful as modern day weapons and, the majority of the time, did not automatically result in the death of the victim.

Furthermore, if you look at the period in which the US Assault Weapons Ban was still in effect, there is a significant correlation between the decrease in weaponry and the decrease in crime rate. Allowing loose gun control obviously has a negative effect on the crime rate, so it baffles me how we can still be having this discussion when the evidence has already been presented to us.

A very poor analogy considering there are literally thousands upon thousands of drivers on the road who don't have legal authority to be on it.

We should create safeguards to make it more difficult for undesirables to obtain firearms, but we need to realize that even outlawing firearms entirely won't 100% stop people from getting them.

No, it's not a poor analogy. It's exactly the point that needs to be made. Owning a gun shouldn't be a right but rather a privilege (just like driving a car). If you can't handle a car responsibly, your legal ability to drive one is taken away. If you can't handle a gun due to mental issues/drug use/a history of poor decision making/whatever, your legal ability to have one is taken away.

Nobody is saying you should outlaw firearms from what I've seen. Nobody is saying, either, that you stop people from getting them. You, however, lessen the user base, and that's a good thing.

I believe guns should be banned entirely. The exception being that you can rent guns for hunting as long as you have gone through significant screening. The constitution needs to be looked at in terms of its context. It was written well over two hundred years ago back when muskets were the main source of weaponry. Muskets are not nearly as powerful as modern day weapons and, the majority of the time, did not automatically result in the death of the victim.

Furthermore, if you look at the period in which the US Assault Weapons Ban was still in effect, there is a significant correlation in the decrease of crime rate.

I agree with all of this. I have always had an extreme hatred of guns. I will never shoot one and I refuse to even touch one. So I sort of hold a "I don't care about the other point of view" opinion because I just feel so strongly about guns.

I believe guns should be banned entirely. The exception being that you can rent guns for hunting as long as you have gone through significant screening. The constitution needs to be looked at in terms of its context. It was written well over two hundred years ago back when muskets were the main source of weaponry. Muskets are not nearly as powerful as modern day weapons and, the majority of the time, did not automatically result in the death of the victim.

Furthermore, if you look at the period in which the US Assault Weapons Ban was still in effect, there is a significant correlation between the decrease in weaponry and the decrease in crime rate. Allowing loose gun control obviously has a negative effect on the crime rate, so it baffles me how we can still be having this discussion when the evidence has already been presented to us.

Dear God. I guess it's not surprising that there are gun loving, Second Amendment quoting retards here too.

The Second Amendment was a perfectly reasonable idea in the 18th century, when most people lived on a frontier, shot their food and, when the occasion arose, shot native Americans too. The likelihood of armed conflict was ever present, an armed militia composed of armed citizens made good sense.

We now live in an entirely different world. The idea that any country's constitution should 'guarantee' citizens the 'right' to keep and bear the kind of weapons of potential mass destruction that are currently readily available to everyone in the US, whether insane or not, is totally monstrous to anyone in the civilized world - except to crazy US right wingers who can do nothing but constantly scream, 'Second Amendment', and threaten to kill anyone who would try to take their guns.

Newsflash - the Constitution is a noble 18th century document. It is NOT etched in stone. Revising parts of this document to bring it a little closer to the realities of our modern world, would not mean the end of life as the gun nuts know it. The paranoid hysteria spread by the extreme right about the potential consequences of any attempt to regulate the availability and ownership of some of these appalling weapons, is too sickening for words. And their standard line - it's not guns, it's the people.

I have today seen gun loonies boldly aver that this tragedy would not have happened if the teachers had been armed.

I have today seen gun loonies proudly announce that their 7 year olds have learned to shoot.

There is no possibility of rational dialogue with people like this. Sadly, there are now enough of these lunatics for them to become a real menace to normal, sane people. I see no realistic option for the future other than to grant the wish of so many wingnuts: give, lease, or sell them part of Texas (or wherever,) let them secede, and make sure they can't come back.

So you only want guns in the hands of people willing to go through illegal means to get them? I don't understand what you think should be done.

the argument that "a gun ban worked in Britain, so we should do it here" is an awful argument. how many illegal firearms are smuggled into America everyday? hundreds, easily. how many are smuggled into Britain? Japan? and European countries? I doubt many.

people want illegal guns for bad intentions because they don't have a serial number and can't be traced. If you were to ban guns from America, all you would do is take them away from people who are legally obtaining them, because it would be impossible to round up all the illegal firearms. and only people who have bad intentions would be left with guns. while those who use them responsible will be left without them and defenseless.

imagine how a situation like this would have ended if the man didn't have a gun? and do you think these people wouldn't have broken in if they didn't have guns? they would have used something else if they didn't have guns to use. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mm9o3vhKoF8

It all boils down to which number is acceptable and how do you put a price on that number.

In the USA there were 2.98 gun homicides per 100k people and in the UK their were .03 homicides per 100k people. So even in countries with maximum gun control people still die from guns.

Where do the gun control people want that number to be because no matter what you do it will never be 0.00

Behind the ostensible government sits enthroned an invisible government, owing no allegiance and acknowledging no responsibility to the people. To destroy this invisible government, to dissolve the unholy alliance between corrupt business and corrupt politics is the first task of the statesmanship of the day.-Theodore Roosevelt

I believe guns should be banned entirely. The exception being that you can rent guns for hunting as long as you have gone through significant screening. The constitution needs to be looked at in terms of its context. It was written well over two hundred years ago back when muskets were the main source of weaponry. Muskets are not nearly as powerful as modern day weapons and, the majority of the time, did not automatically result in the death of the victim.

Furthermore, if you look at the period in which the US Assault Weapons Ban was still in effect, there is a significant correlation between the decrease in weaponry and the decrease in crime rate. Allowing loose gun control obviously has a negative effect on the crime rate, so it baffles me how we can still be having this discussion when the evidence has already been presented to us.

If firearms of all kind were outlawed, how would you defend yourself against somebody threatening you or your family with an illegal gun, knife, whatever? Call the cops and hope they get there fast enough? Would you beg for your life or take his?

If firearms of all kind were outlawed, how would you defend yourself against somebody threatening you or your family with an illegal gun, knife, whatever? Call the cops and hope they get there fast enough? Would you beg for your life or take his?

If firearms of all kind were outlawed, how would you defend yourself against somebody threatening you or your family with an illegal gun, knife, whatever? Call the cops and hope they get there fast enough? Would you beg for your life or take his?

I don't own a gun to begin with and it's very likely that neither do the majority of people murdered by firearms every year. That's a silly argument.